Wisconsin Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan entered a not guilty plea on Thursday in response to federal accusations that she assisted an undocumented immigrant in evading immigration officers who were attempting to detain him inside her courthouse.
This case has drawn considerable attention due to its unusual circumstances and the rare situation of a sitting judge facing criminal allegations related to interference with immigration enforcement.
Wisconsin Brief Arraignment in Downtown Milwaukee
Wisconsin The arraignment hearing took place at the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee. The session was notably brief, lasting less than five minutes. Outside the courthouse, about one hundred demonstrators gathered in the morning, voicing their opposition to the charges and supporting the judge. Many held signs with slogans such as “Not Guilty,” “Hands off Democracy,” and “Liquidate the Oligarchs.” Chants echoed through the area with phrases like “Democracy! Hands off!” and “Free speech! Hands off!”.
Wisconsin During the hearing, Judge Dugan’s lead attorney, Steve Biskupic—a former U.S. Attorney—formally entered the not guilty plea on her behalf. Representing the government was Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard G. Frohling, who spoke for the Department of Justice.
Wisconsin Trial Timeline and Legal Proceedings
Wisconsin Officials revealed that the trial is scheduled to begin on July 21, with U.S. However, pretrial motions and other procedural matters will be handled by a different judge. Prosecutors anticipate the trial will last about a week, though they noted that jury selection might extend longer than usual due to the case’s complexity and the high-profile nature of the defendant.
Background: Charges and Indictment
These charges stem from an incident that occurred earlier this year involving Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a man deported in 2013 who allegedly returned to the U.S. illegally. A federal grand jury handed down an indictment against Dugan on Tuesday, marking a significant escalation in the legal battle she faces.
If convicted on both counts, Dugan could face a prison sentence of up to six years, a serious potential penalty that highlights the gravity of the allegations.
Context: DOJ’s Increased Immigration Enforcement
This case unfolds amid an intensified nationwide crackdown on immigration-related offenses led by the Department of Justice. The DOJ has ramped up efforts to target immigration violations, especially in major cities where undocumented immigrant populations are large.
Sources familiar with the planning have indicated that this move is part of a broader strategy to enforce immigration laws more aggressively.
Details of the Incident
According to court documents, the key incident took place on April 18 in Judge Dugan’s courtroom. Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was attending a hearing related to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. At some point during the proceedings, Dugan’s courtroom clerk informed her that immigration agents were present in the courthouse with the intention of detaining Flores-Ruiz.
Prosecutors claim that upon hearing this, Dugan allegedly dismissed the agents’ presence as “absurd.” Rather than allowing them to proceed, she is accused of instructing the immigration officials to consult.
Following the courthouse exit, immigration agents reportedly pursued Flores-Ruiz on foot outside the building, eventually apprehending him after a short chase, according to the court filings.
Defense: Legal Immunity Argument
On Wednesday, the defense team submitted a motion arguing that Judge Dugan’s actions that day were well within the scope of her judicial duties. They contend she merely directed the flow of people in and around her courtroom and assert that she is protected by judicial immunity, which shields judges from prosecution for official acts performed in their capacity on the bench.
The defense emphasized the legal principle that immunity serves as an absolute shield from prosecution and should be recognized at the outset, rather than as a defense evaluated later by a jury or court. This protection is crucial for judges to perform their functions independently and without fear of retaliation.
To bolster their argument, Dugan’s lawyers referenced a landmark 2024 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirmed absolute immunity for former presidents regarding prosecution for official acts. This ruling emerged in the context of former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case, setting a precedent for broad immunity protections for public officials acting within their official roles.
Public Reaction and Next Steps
Judge Dugan declined to answer questions from reporters as she left the courthouse on Thursday. Meanwhile, the public and legal observers remain closely attentive to the developments in this unusual case, which raises complex issues surrounding the boundaries of judicial authority, immigration enforcement, and the rule of law.
The upcoming trial will test the balance between judicial immunity and criminal accountability, and it is likely to set important legal precedents regarding how judges engage with law enforcement actions, particularly those involving immigration.
As the case progresses, both sides are expected to prepare extensively for what promises to be a closely watched courtroom battle. The involvement of a sitting judge in criminal proceedings related to alleged interference with federal immigration authorities makes this case unprecedented and significant on multiple levels.